Tuesday, October 03, 2006
It's a little different this time, Jonathan.
In an earlier piece, I took a slap at Blogging Tory "Strong Conservative" Jonathan Strong, who seems determined to play the apologist for GOP congressman Mark Foley, constantly whinging on about how the Democrats did it too, etc, etc, and making this out to be just partisan nastiness.
What Jonathan still hasn't figured out is that Foley's case is different because some of the most vicious, attack dog criticism of not just Foley but the entire GOP leadership is coming, not from all of us deranged, unhinged leftist moonbats, but from the Far Right.
Check out this piece, where long-time, right-wing loon Bay Buchanan absolutely savages the GOP leadership. Unlike Strong, Buchanan doesn't cast around for pathetic, lame-ass rationalizations to defend Foley. Unlike Strong, Buchanan finally, for once in her mostly worthless life, has a moment of profound clarity and sees the evil for what it really is. And she doesn't mince words.
Witness also the Moonie-run Washington Times, who have amazingly taken time out from being batshit-crazy, neo-con whackjobs to also have their moment of lucidity in demanding that House Speaker Denny Hastert resign.
All of that's pretty amazing stuff, isn't it, Jonathan? And what it shows is that you are so on the wrong side of history here, since even the most clinically-insane, right-wing fundamentalist nutbars have finally put a sock in their endless blathering about abortion and gay marriage and flag burning and other asinine non-topics long enough to realize that this is all about their kids, and they are seriously fucking pissed and, unlike you, Jonathan, they're not making inane rationalizations or idiotic historical comparisons. They're just plain furious, and they're looking for heads to roll.
You, on the other hand, Jonathan ... well, apparently, some things will never change. I guess being a spineless, conservative apologist hack is a hard habit to break, isn't it?
AFTERSNARK: As difficult as this is for me, I will give Mr. Strong credit that he stopped short of descending to this breathtaking level of utter depravity.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
I'm not sure how you think I'm an apologist for Foley. I think he should be locked away for good.
Take not of my statements:
"I'm glad Foley is gone, he's obviously a sick pig that probably can't be rehabilitated."
and, "I'm disgusted by Frank, Foley, and the rest of them."
I object to your insinuation that I would defend Foley who was obviously preying on minors.
I've seen these monsters up close during a visit to the Florida Civil Commitment Center while working as a legislative aide. The center I visited housed those who were unfit to return to society despite serving their sentences. It was a horrible place filled with monsters.
In fact, I'm in favor of the death penalty for those that sexually abuse children. There is no hope for rehabilitation for them.
I would appreciate it if you withdraw your accusations that I have rationalized the Foley situation.
My intent was to point out that it is the Democrats who have rationalized numerous criminal probes in the government: Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, and Gerry Studs (who was given three standing ovations by democrats in the house).
Justice is blind, it also requires swift action and meaningful deterrence. If Foley has broken the law (possibly one he wrote), he should be subject to the full measure of it.
Um ... Jonathan? Take a close look at your blog post that I linked to. I defy you to show me a single word in all of that that represents criticism of Mark Foley. Just one word, that's all I'm asking for.
One word.
Jonathan - in the big fat wake of this news (and the wake appears to be growing fatter), to have you jumping up to tell everybody that the Democrats are awfully bad is just pitiful. That might be part of what CC is sorta getting at here.
Anyone who reads my blog knows I'm hawk on crime and punishment issues.
Foley was right to resign, Foley should be investigated, Foley should go to jail if he broke the law. If GOP leaders like Hastert knew about his conduct beforehand, they should step down from their positions. I can't get any clearer than that.
My intent was to make it clear that this incident should not be used for partisan advantage. The Democrats have their share of scandals, as do Republicans. Foley's conduct shouldn't be pinned on a party, just as Barney Frank's shouldn't be pinned on the Democrats.
The only time it should is if a party fails to take the proper steps to resolve the situation: i.e. Barney Frank still being in Congress. Hastert, similarly, should bare responsibility if there was any cover up however slight.
My beef is that Pelosi and Reid will be finger pointing at the GOP over Foley when they have a pattern of making excuses and defending those in their own party who do the same or worse.
"Foley's conduct shouldn't be pinned on a party, just as Barney Frank's shouldn't be pinned on the Democrats.
The only time it should is if a party fails to take the proper steps to resolve the situation: i.e. Barney Frank still being in Congress. Hastert, similarly, should bare responsibility if there was any cover up however slight."
I won't hold my breath that others who knew and allegedly warned kids, will step down.
I wonder if the Sponsorship Scandal should have been used for partisan advantage.
The sponsorship scandal was political in nature. That's a horrible argument.
We're talking about child abuse.
I'd change your name smartpants.
Did I miss something - did Frank do anything besides hire a prostitute and fix a few parking tickets? Not exactly admirable, but it's not really like sexual harrassment of teenage pages.
Since we're on the subject, would the far right be nearly as upset about Foley if he'd been harrassing female pages?
I can't possibly change my name at this point. I'm too famous.
This matter is political in nature, too. If not, why are you addressing it?
But more importantly, maybe my analogy would be weaker if Foley had not been the CO_CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE CAUCUS ON MISSING AND EXPLOITED CHILDREN. But not that much weaker.
Another thing that might make it weaker would be if there weren't a host of others, all Republicans (which really surprised me) that knew about this and kept it hidden:
Rep. John Shimkus of Illinois, the Republican chairman of the House Page Board "late 2005"
Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the leader of the Republican majority “earlier this year”
Hastert himself learned about the e-mail messages “sometime earlier this year”
Phrases like "late in 2005" and "earlier this year" really remind me of "we're just putting the finishing touches on the report". I get queasy.
Anyway, I dug those up pretty easily, and I don't even know what the hell I'm doing. Seriously.
the strong conservative writes:
"My intent was to make it clear that this incident should not be used for partisan advantage."
And yet, Jonathan, there you are, with that blog post that is pure partisanship from beginning to end.
You seem physically incapable of directly and unconditionally denouncing a serial, sexual predator. That entire post of yours can be summed up in three simple words: "But the Democrats ..."
There is, as I have already pointed out, not a word of condemnation of Foley to be seen there. Instead, what you have is one long screed against the Democrats.
That, Jonathan, is the very definition of partisanship. Now let me give you some advice. Walk away slowly before you embarrass yourself any further. Seriously.
P.S. It might be worth pointing out that Jonathan's post is not only hideously partisan, it's also hideously dishonest.
Note how he links approvingly to a post that suggests that Democrat Gary Condit has something to do with the death of intern Chandra Levy. There is absolutely nothing to link Condit to Levy's death, but it doesn't stop Jonathan from dragging out that old chestnut and parading it around.
But, hey, let's not call that "partisanahip," 'cuz that would be mean.
P.P.S. If Jonathan wants to suggest some kind of sleazy connection between Condit and Levy, he might want to weigh on this beauty, where a dead female office worker was found in former GOP Rep. Joe Scarborough's office. His office, for fuck's sake!
How 'bout that one, Jonathan? You sure you still want to keep milking that Chandra Levy story?
I didn't link anything with Condit, that's irrelevant.
The partisanship is clearly on the Democrats' side. Since Foley resigned, why is there still a news story?
Its because the Democrats want to use this scandal to win the House. There's far too much at stake to let that happen, they are completely untrustworthy on security, have no ideas on social security or health care, and want to open the border to immigration.
You're moral outrage is completely transparent, otherwise you'd have called for Clinton's resignation too.
the strong conservative wrote:
"I didn't link anything with Condit,..."
Stop lying, Jonathan. Just fucking stop it. Right now.
Anyone who's interested can go to your blog post and find the link under Gateway Pundit's phrase "did not disappear and end up dead", which will take them here, which is piece on the death of intern Chandra Levy, which mentions Democrat Gary Condit prominently.
The purpose of that article is solely and excluslvely to smear a Democrat in order to take the heat off of Mark Foley.
You complained right up front that you did not link anything with Condit, and that was a flat-out lie. At this point, you're banned.
I can put up with all kinds of neo-con idiocy on this site, but when someone blatantly lies about the contents of their own blog posts when we can all read what they actually wrote, well, that's a line I don't let people cross here.
Hasta la vista. Don't let the door whack you in the ass on the way out.
"There's far too much at stake to let that happen, they are completely untrustworthy on security, have no ideas on social security or health care, and want to open the border to immigration."
Oh, like proposing that Afghanistan be given back to the Taliban, like a certain Bill Frist did?
I love the whole "pedophiles over immogration" stance though. Priceless.
CC:
Miscommunication, I didn't personally link Condit stuff, I was just linking Gateway, that was my intent.
Still unimportant though, I apologize for the oversight.
That said, this is getting ridiculous. We are in agreement that Foley is a pig and did the right thing by resigning. We also think anyone who covered it up should resign too.
My point is that Democrats are using this scandal to their political advantage. That is insane in consideration of the scandals they've justified.
If you agree that Foley was "a pig" and should have resigned for his actions, then you probably agree that the GOP leaders who covered up his actions and allowed him to continue harassing pages, possibly for five years and more, should probably be held accountable too. Right?
Maybe that's why this story is still in the news. Just sayin'.
SC:
"Since Foley resigned, why is there still a news story?"
Strong Conservative, do you not think that the cover-up in and of itself is interesting enough to be a news item? Seriously?
I've said repeatedly, that if anyone covered it up they should resign too. I stand by that.
As yet, there's no indication of a direct cover up. Hastert apparently knew of emails between Foley and the page, but not the content.
I want Hastert to resign regardless because of his leadership of the House. I'm ticked off at the spending, immigration, and other issues.
What I think is obvious is the timing of the release of this information, its undoubtedly politically motivated. But hey, its out and so is Foley (of the closet and House).
You know, contrary to the belief of American political pundits, the world does not go into suspended animation every second year. Sometimes bad things really do come up during even-numbered years...
Shhh! Don't tell Karl Rove that releasing politically motivated information just before an election might help the GOP cause!
He might just use it!!!1!
Jonathan suggests:
"What I think is obvious is the timing of the release of this information, its undoubtedly politically motivated."
Really? That'a a pretty interesting claim, considering that it wasn't the Democrats who publicized this, it was ABC News. The same ABC News that recently broadcast the blatantly political "Path to 9/11" hatchet job on the Democrats. But I guess that was just the most amazing of coincidences in terms of political timing, right, Jonathan? Nothing untoward there, is that it?
And, as I've already blogged, even WingNutDaily had the sense to understand that the GOP knew about Foley back in 2005 and had all the time in the world to deal with the problem back then. They chose not to, in effect leaving a ticking time bomb in place. It's no one's fault but the GOP leadership's that that time bomb decided to go off at the worst possible moment.
Let it go, Jonathan. All you're doing is making more of a fool of yourself with every comment. No one here is even debating you anymore. They're just laughing at you.
I didn't know that using a scandal to political advantage was insanity. I would have described that as dirty politics, and both sides play it well - Bush's side just a bit better lately.
Game, set, match.
Regarding that rubbish that this is all a carefully-timed political smear campaign, I give you ABC's Brian Ross:
"Mr. Ross dismissed suggestions by some Republicans that the news was disseminated as part of a smear campaign against Mr. Foley.
“I hate to give up sources, but to the extent that I know the political parties of any of the people who helped us, it would be the same party,” Mr. Ross said, referring to Republicans."
Now, can we shut the heck up about this once and for all?
Thank you.
See? SC comes in with all these brilliant arguments, and all you can do is descend to personal attacks.
No wonder he's known far and wide as a brilliant orator and master debator.
Well, close to that.
Post a Comment